Alan Evil wrote:Do any of you guys with the big equipment ever sell to news organizations? How does one go about this?
There are plenty of places that will 'purchase' quality photos, the problem is that a lot of them will try to screw you out of rights and/or pay you next to nothing. You can even up load your images to CNN.com on through something called I-Report. Call it the youtube-i-fication of news, call it your 15 minutes of fame, I call it covering news on the cheap. Have a nation of millions gather the news via their camera phones and send them into the all-mighty (cue James Earl Jones) C N N. Ahhhh corporate news, bottom line over quality coverage.
wes, in Illinois it was/is the same way....10 times as many wrestlers at the meets as there were spectators...in high school everyone knew there were no athletes who trained and worked at their craft as hard as the wrestlers.
My high school was all about athletics, so I never experienced that spectator to participant ratio till college. I went to a small private school that was more about agriculture than aggression. Nobody went to sporting events....haha. Come to think of it... I hate watching sports too. Especially climbing.
"Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken."
-Tyler Durden
Alan Evil wrote:Seriuosly, you guys need to start breaking your posts up into, like, 4 pictures per post so the pages will load more quickly. I'd bet that those poor lost souls with dial-up can't even look at this thread. I've got blazing fast cable and that last page takes around 40 seconds to load.
My sense from what I see happening in my browser is that a lot of the delay is from the servers that are, well, serving up the photos, rather than the speed of my DSL connection. I don't have the technical tools/know-how to test this, but I'm pretty sure that's what's happening.
Either way, fewer images per page would reduce the (perceived) delay, esp. on some of the really long pages.
